>>>I disagree, the very fact that we went to the moon was because there was a demand.

The space program was part of Cold War effort and was proposed to American people on that basis. Kennedy took a risk when he proposed putting a man on the moon. He did not know before he proposed it how popular it might be. The risk was his popularity. The people did not know they would agree, or buy into, the proposition until he made it. The price was irrelevant because it was a war effort and it was tax money and therefore OPM - other people's money.

>>>Supply vs demand dictates the price, which is why the space program cost millions and millions of dollars when it started out.

It cost a lot because it didn't exist and had to be created. It was a bespoke creation. Such things are very expensive and only governments and the rich can buy them at first. Then folk figure out how to make cheaper similar products so more folk can buy them.

Perhaps I didn't express myself very well or went a step too far.

The basic idea is: supply creates its own demand.

It doesn't follow from that that some products supplied can be sold. Well, they can be sold for scrap, not as the original product, so the proposition holds up.

Desire is 'I want'.
Demand is 'sell me' or 'let's exchange' or sometimes just 'give me'.
Desire is an emotion and is private and its objective is private. Demand is an action and is public and its objective is public. It can be measured. The measurement is called 'sales'.

>>>I would argue that there are lots of people who want to go to the moon in 2012.
The only thing stopping them is money.

Sure lots of folk want to go to the moon but until service is supplied, you don't know what the demand will be. You can do market surveys and project, but you don't know until you supply and they buy. Then you know there is demand. That's why there is risk.

What you are saying is that cost of commercial space travel/transportation is coming down. I don't disagree. If it comes down far enough I'm sure folk (not governments) will offer FIT travel to the moon. And they'll be taking a risk in terms of P and L statement.

OK I'll stop with this. I obviously have a bee in my bonnet.

Why would you want to stop when you have it running so good?

You are quite right, of course. Initial projections are simply speculation, informed as it may be, but still only speculation.

Because of that, we did also see some megaflops simply because the marketing research was way off base. For exmple, the late 50-ies Ford Edsel - easly the ugliest car ever made until the current Nissan Juke. The Edsel sold no more than some 3,000 units, which is pure catastrophy for a company the size of Ford, and those were the GOOD years. Their biggest boo-boo ever.

To their credit, they came back swinging a sledgehammer just a few years later, with the Mustang. 169,000 cars sold in the first 7 months of going on sale.

The difference was that the Mustang project was headed by one Lee Iacoca, who slightly "modified" the Detroit recipe - don't do it from scratch, rather use as many parts already in existence as possible, use the by then slow selling Falcon undercarriage, and make it look sexier than it is. He came up with a legend lasting to this day. I sure as hell would love to own one, which I never will, because by the time I park it, its purchase price will be about twice what it costs in the US, and I'll be lucky to get away with such a modest price.

And - take a lesson here, ye faithless! - Ford followed the initial Mustang success with a follow-up act in Europe, called the Capri. Exactly the same logic and contents, only made in Germany and UK.

It's not too hard to make a very good product using specialist rare and exensive parts, the trick is to make an outstanding product using more or less off the shelf parts.

There are power MOSFETs out there rated at 2,500 Watts (yep, 2.5 kW) each, the only trouble being that they cost around $800 each, the last time I looked about 2 years ago. Probably around $1k today.

I'm sure the tube guys here could quote a similar tube, exceptionally capable but madly expensive.

dvv,
You don't want an original "rustang". I had two. They drove like garbage but were just what we stupid Americans wanted at the time. Leaf springs, bad front geometry, recirc ball steering, 4 wheel drums, the list goes on.

When Lee took over because Kennedy saved Ford by pulling McNamara to DoD to destroy it, Lee killed the original world car program which is how Saab got the V4 and squashed the Falcon to make the Mustang. 1.4 MILLION if the first model year.

dvv,
You don't want an original "rustang". I had two. They drove like garbage but were just what we stupid Americans wanted at the time. Leaf springs, bad front geometry, recirc ball steering, 4 wheel drums, the list goes on.

When Lee took over because Kennedy saved Ford by pulling McNamara to DoD to destroy it, Lee killed the original world car program which is how Saab got the V4 and squashed the Falcon to make the Mustang. 1.4 MILLION if the first model year.

Easy on the V4 engine, I was driven by two for 15 years, first in a Ford Taunus 12m (1964-1969), and then in a Ford Taunus 15m (1969-1980). Hardly a road runner, but that V4 (available as 1300, 1500, 1700 and 2000 cc from Ford Europe) was the world champion of the day - production model did over 280.000 km (app. 170,000 miles) with only regular servicing before requiring a refurbishing. It actuall beat Mercedes, BMW and the rest of them. But certainly no road devil, it was built to last, not to be fast.

As for the Mustang, thanks for the heads up, but I really meant the current GT model with a 5 litre V8. Yeah, I also saw "Bullit", but at the time, I think most European cars had better handling and at least front wheel disks as standard.

As for the Mustang, thanks for the heads up, but I really meant the current GT model with a 5 litre V8. Yeah, I also saw "Bullit", but at the time, I think most European cars had better handling and at least front wheel disks as standard.

I test-drove Mustang GT with 8V. When I push pedal it like starts thanking, "Well, do I need to accelerate? No, really do I need to accelerate?", then as if wakes up and starts to accelerate. Heavy body, suspension like on a mattress. But I have to admit, it revs loud like real Mustang.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

We agree on something!

Does anyone here remember the 3Com Audrey disaster?

Do you mean demand ceased? I don't think so. I believe 3Com misunderstood what happened in economy and killed the product that could be successfull.

One more story: Japanese designers were thinking that the world is behind their best audio production until Soviet deceiver landed Mig-25 in Japan, They found 6S33S tube and realized that Japan is behind.

From Wiki:
"The capabilities of the MiG-25 were better understood in 1976 when Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko defected in a MiG-25 to the United States via Japan. "

And then Japanese military audiophiles decided that Americans wouldn't notice some of the parts from that MiG missing... they fiddled a bit....and so was the Japanese superiority in audio restored

I test-drove Mustang GT with 8V. When I push pedal it like starts thanking, "Well, do I need to accelerate? No, really do I need to accelerate?", then as if wakes up and starts to accelerate. Heavy body, suspension like on a mattress. But I have to admit, it revs loud like real Mustang.

...

Oh I don't like that. When I built my current fun car, one of the key points was instant response, as fast as we could get it to respond. To that end, we had to use a cascode fuel supply system - one small Bosch 453 453 fuel pump in the reservoir, adjusted for maximum flow, but at a lower pressure, just 2.2 bar. It feeds a custom made fuel tank holding just 0.6 litres of fuel, in the engine bay. Following that tank is another Bosch fuel pump, at the time, a development prototype for Audi's R8. This one pumps as much fuel as you want at 3.5 bar pressure, and a limiter drops this not to the usual 2.5 bar as with 99% of cicillian fuel injection systems, but to 3 bar, which is more racing.

Then we used a current rather than voltage controlled EFI, itself a highly modified Weber Marelli injection system. As in audio, current control is much better, more precise and easier to tweak, but also more expensive, and you need a I/V converter.

The net result is almost literally explosive performance, instant raction.

On the picture, the stainless steel small reservoir is to the left lower corner, and the blue thing next to it is the Audi high pressure, high volume fuel pump.

The rest is a FIAT 1,600 cc engine, worked over to yield just over 142 horse power. Given that the entire vehicle, in form and shape of a Yugo, weighs in at just 820 kilos with its tank 3/4 full, this yields a weight to power ratio of just 6,58 kg/hp, including my own 115 kg weight. It does 0-60 mph in 6.7 seconds.

But it's the looks on the faces of SUV I'm-Gonna-Run-you-over drivers in my rear view mirror which is priceless.

This car never saw any factory putting it together. It's 100% hand made, and just as unique. It was made over 2 years by 6 of my friends, each a specialist in some field, and myself, litarally tailor made for me, as per my specifications.

While it will not outrace the said V8 5 litre Mustang, it will make its driver wonder what the hell is going on. Especially at 125 mhp. Man, it's FUN!

But what REALLY makes me love it is the unbeatable sound of an Italian engine at 8.000 rpm. Nobody does a high revving engine like the Italians. It's a sleeper only until I press the gas pedal. After that, it's a pocket rocket.

From Wiki:
"The capabilities of the MiG-25 were better understood in 1976 when Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko defected in a MiG-25 to the United States via Japan. "

And then Japanese military audiophiles decided that Americans wouldn't notice some of the parts from that MiG missing... they fiddled a bit....and so was the Japanese superiority in audio restored

Here's the proof

I remember during the '80s the americans sold the japanese a guided-missile system. A few years later during excersises they noticed that the missiles they sold the japanese were substantially more accurate than the same missiles used by US forces.
Turns out that when servicing them the japanese used replacement bearings from a video recorder head (probably JVC) in the gyroscopic guidance system rather than the original manufacturers replacement as they were a fraction of the cost and made to closer tolerances.

As for the revived Mustang the boys from TopGear had two around their track: A 500hp Shelby version and a 400hp version which got treated to independent rear suspension.
The low-power IRS version finished ten seconds ahead of Shelbys high-power life axle 'stang.

Is that why the advance in Japanese TUBE amps? Or was it to built cheap steel chassis with? The 25 had one really great attribute: It it had a massive engine and could go very fact for a very short time. It was a classic example of brute force engineering. Their newer planes seem to be based on newer photographs of Western planes and are now close to top tier. The Russian shuttle must have been a case where they did metric conversion incorrectly, as it was an almost exact ripoff of the STS but about 2/3 scale. Too bad all this Soviet era hardware is sitting out in the open slowly falling apart. They need to build a facility like the Smithsonian Air and Space to save this stuff and let people see and appreciate it. I'd like to see the AN-225 saved at some time when they quit using them. Park it next to the Spruce Goose ( which has a BIGGER wingspan)

As for the revived Mustang the boys from TopGear had two around their track: A 500hp Shelby version and a 400hp version which got treated to independent rear suspension.
The low-power IRS version finished ten seconds ahead of Shelbys high-power life axle 'stang.

Yes, it appears that the Shelby version is a total miss. It's around 300 kilos heavier than the series version, and it appears that Ford has a problem with transferring all that power and torque from the engine to the wheels.

As for Jeremy & Co., I wouldn't put much stock in them (in fact, I don't put any stock in them). I think they have deteriorated into pure show some years back. They are obviously exceptionally biased - when they like you, as with Aston Martin, they will elevate you to the stars, you can do no worng, and when they don't like you, you'll be trash no matter what you do. So they treat a cheap Kia to much misuse because it won't do what a Ferrari will. And Jeremy's US aimed jokes have lost any semblance of taste many years ago.

Not that others are less biased, some just cover their tracks more scientifically. For example, German'y "Auto, Motor und Sport" magazine used to be THE best ever, but today, they too, like the rest of German press, are just another VW magazine. If testing the middle class, and if a VW Golf is present, along with an Audi A3 and say a Skoda Octavia and SEAT Leon (since all are based on the Golf platform), the ONLY doubt as to who's best is whether the Skoda will beat the Seat, but Golf wins be default, and is always followed by Audi. Very rarely, they might trade places.

And while I'll agree that the Golf is indeed and excellent product, I would also suggest that Volkswagen changes their name to just Wagen, because they haven't had anything to do with Volks (People) for years. It's not too hard being the best if you initially agree to be 20-30% more expensive than your competitors.

I think we are way beyond anything even resembling objectivity; everybody is too busy rooting for their own.